But though men have the power given them over the lives of animals, there is a condition in the same charter, that they shall take them with as little pain as possible to the creatures.  If the death of animals is to be made serviceable to men, the least they can do in return is to mitigate their sufferings, while they expire.  This obligation the Supreme Being imposed upon those, to whom he originally gave the charter, by the command of not eating their flesh, while the life’s blood was in it.  The Jews obliged all their converts to religion, even the proselytes of the gate, who were not considered to be so religious as the proselytes of the covenant, to observe what they called the seventh commandment of Noah, or that “they should[10] not eat the member of any beast that was taken from it, while it was alive.”  This law therefore of blood, whatever other objects it might have in view, enjoined that, while men were engaged in the distresing task of taking away the life of an animal, they should respect its feelings, by abstaining from torture, or all unnecessary pain.

[Footnote 10:  It seems almost impossible, that men could be so depraved, as to take flesh to eat from a poor animal, while alive, and yet from the law enjoined to proselytes of the gate it is probable, that it was the case.  Bruce, whose travels into Abyssynia are gaining in credit, asserts that such customs obtained there.  And the Harleian Miscellany, vol. 6.  P. 126, in which is a modern account of Scotland, written in 1670, states the same practice as having existed in our own island.]

[11]On Noah, and in him on all mankind The Charter was conferr’d, by which we hold The flesh of animals in fee, and claim O’er all we feed on pow’r of life and death.  But read the instrument, and mark it well.  The oppression of a tyrannous control Can find no warrant there.  Feed then, and yield Thanks for thy food.  Carnivorous, through sin, Feed on the slain; but spare the living brute.

[Footnote 11:  Cowper.]

From this charter, and from the great condition annexed to it, the Quakers are of opinion that rights and duties have sprung up; rights on behalf of animals, and duties on the part of men; and that a breach of these duties, however often, or however thoughtlessly it may take place, is a breach of a moral law.  For this charter did not relate to those animals only, which lived in the particular country of the Jews, but to those in all countries wherever Jews might exist.  Nor was the observance of it confined to the Jews only, but it was to extend to the Proselytes of the covenant and the gate.  Nor was the observance of it confined to these Proselytes, but it was to extend to all nations; because all animals of the same species are in all countries organized alike, and have all similar feelings; and because all animals of every kind are susceptible of pain.

In trying the lawfulness of the diversions of the field, as the Quakers do by this charter, and the great condition that is annexed to it, I purpose, in order to save time, to confine myself to hunting, for this will appear to be the most objectionable, if examined in this manner.